Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2015-08-17 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) 1, Lori Kofoid,being duly sworn,deposes and says, that deponent is not a party to the actions, is over 21 years of age with a professional address of 215 North Tioga Street,Ithaca,New York. That on the 5th day of August 2015,deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners listed on the attached document,of the following Tax Parcel Numbers: 109 Juniper Dr,Tax Parcel No. 51-1-15.19 704 Elmira Rd, Tax Parcel No. 33.-2-6.21 313 Rachel Carson Trail, Tax Parcel No.28.-1-26.85 315 Rachel Carson Trail,Tax Parcel No.28.-1-26.85 317 Rachel Carson Trail, Tax Parcel No.28.-1-26.85 By depositing same enclosed in a postpaid addressed wrapper,in a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department within the State of New York. ori Kot yid,Deputy Tow C -rk Town of Ithaca Sworn to before me this 5`n Day of AlLtgust.21015. Notary Public Debra DeAugistine Notary Public-State of New York No.01 DE6148035 Oualified in Tompkins County My Commission Expires June 19,20—21 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Monday August 17, 2015 Minutes Board Members Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Bill King, Christine Decker, Chris Jung; Alternate George Vignaux Absent: John DeRosa and Carin Rubin Staff Present: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk; Lorraine Moynihan-Schmitt, Attorney for the Town Mr. Rosen opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Appeal of Steven Ehrhardt and Lydia Werbizky, owners, requesting a Special Approval from Chapter 270-223 A (3)(c) "Fences and walls; retaining walls", of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to be permitted to install a 6 ft high fence that is located less than 10 ft from the road right of way, located at 109 Juniper Dr, Tax Parcel No. 53.-l-15.1,9 Medium Density Residential (MDR). The applicant seeks a Special Approval from the ZBA to construct a 6 foot fence less than 10 feet from a street right-of-way line,pursuant to Town of Ithaca Zoning Code § 270-223 (A)(3)(c) Special Approval ZBA Review Provision and in accordance with Town of Ithaca Zoning Code § 270-200 Considerations for Special Approvals. Steven Ehrhardt was present to answer questions from the board. Mr. Ehrhardt noted that he had a diagram for sightlines if needed later. Mr. Rosen stated that he drove by the site and he thought that if the fence is put at the street line it is going to seem very walled off and the neighbor around the corner has hers fence set back 10 feet and he was concerned about the aesthetics. Mr. Ehrhardt responded that the neighbor's fence is practically in the culvert and he handed out the diagram showing sight lines and build lines for the fence and the right-of-way(ROW) with an overview picture of the house. The red line indicates the fence location with the ROW shown as the thin black line and at its closest point it is 4 feet from the ROW and it angles away from the paved portion of the road to where the northern end of the proposed fence is about 10 feet from the ROW. Mr. Rosen said there is an unpaved shoulder that is part of the road that people walk, bike, or park on; Mr. Ehrhardt responded that there has never been a car parked there. Mr. King asked if the rope he had placed was exactly where he intended to put the fence and Mr. Ehrhardt responded that the red rope is the ROW and he intends to put it inside of that but the rope shows that there is quite a bit of lawn between the ROW and the roadway. Mr. King asked why the ROW doesn't follow the edge of the pavement and no one really knew. Mr. King stated that his observation was that the notification of the public hearing sign was the minimum distance from the road that would be good to him and as you go to the r backyard it got too close to the road and he would rather see it run parallel to the road than to 1 the ROW and maintain that distance. He didn't feel there was enough room left for snowplowing or cars that may have to pull over. Mr. Ehrhardt indicated that the thick black line would be where it would go if it were always 10 feet from the ROW and added that if the board could not permit the fence to be at the ROW, he could put a smaller fence in there as of right-- a 6 foot high fence with slats at 50%, and that is what the neighbor has. Mr. Bates wanted to caution the board that if they are talking about parking and snow,he is not required to allow that and the board can't give somebody else permission to use that property. Parking on the side of the road is keeping two tires on and no further than the ROW. Mr. Rosen responded that the code is to keep it 10 feet back because it's about visibility but Mr. Bates responded that that concern was for intersections and being able to pull out of your driveway. He stated that this one does not pose any sight issues. Mr. Rosen asked what the thick black line on the drawing indicated and Mr. Bates responded that that is where he could put the fence if he wanted without needing a special approval. Mr. Rosen asked why it wasn't parallel with the red line. Mr. Ehrhardt responded that it could be a mistake in the drawing but one of the reasons he wants doesn't want to put the fence so far inside the property line is to allow access to landscapers and gates and such and he was told he would need 8 feet, and he has a bocce court that he needs 8 foot clearance from. He was surprised they told him 8 feet because he has 6 feet on the other side of his property but that is what they told him. Lengthy discussion followed on the need for accessibility and the size needed. Mr. Ehrhardt responded that if he is not allowed to put the proposed fence where he wants it he might be more likely to simply build a 6 foot high fence with the gaps and that would not require a special approval and would actually infringe on the sight lines more than what he is proposing and he could do that as of right. He stated that the point about traffic safety is the main reason for needing a special approval and the issue doesn't exist here as his fence is proposed. Mr. Ehrhardt stated that if the board just doesn't like the look of the fence that isn't something he can help. That is a style choice and he would prefer a solid fence rather than a gapped fence and he is not affecting any sight lines with his proposal. Mr. King responded that his concern is the aesthetics of a fence that close to the road and not parallel with the road not necessarily the type of fence but the placement parallel with the road. Discussion followed on moving the fence to run parallel which would need a setback variance but addressed the concerns of most of the board members. Compromise would be a 5 foot setback parallel to the the ROW line. It was determined that the minimum special approval distance within the right of way that was needed was a fence that had 8 feet clearance from the corner of the bocce court. The fence could be at the 10 foot setback line at the front corner of the lot, as long as it had 8 feet clearance from the bocce court. It looked like the fence would be about 2 feet from the ROW at the back corner of the lot. The concept was shown and discussed at length using the drawing with the lines. Mr. Rosen drew it on the diagram which was given to the clerk for the file. 2 Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing 6:35p.m. There was no one wishing to address the board and the hearing was closed. Discussion followed with a focus on access into the property for various equipment and the gates and clearance needed. Mr. Ehrhardt stated that the variance shouldn't depend on him trying to anticipate any and all access needs for his property since that is his issue not the board's if it comes down to needing access. ZBA Resolution 0061-2015—Special Approval 109 Juniper Dr., TP 51-1-15.19 MDR August 17, 2015 Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Bill King Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Steven Ehrhardt and Lydia Werbizky, owners, requesting a Special Approval from Chapter 270-223 A (3)(c) "Fences and walls; retaining walls", of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to be permitted to install a 6 foot high fence that is located less than 10 feet from the road right of way with the following: Conditions: That the fence be no more than 8 feet, as measured perpendicularly from the fence to the corner of the bocce court and continue in a straight line for the entire length of the fence and meet the 10 foot setback line from the ROW at the northwest corner of the lot, so the fence would have a zero -0 foot setback from the ROW at the northwest corner of the lot. With the following Findings That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1. The benefit the applicant wishes to achieve of vehicle access to the yard, cannot be achieved by any other mean feasible, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, given that a deer fence is already permitted and that this board has mitigated the effect by having the fence run essentially parallel to the pavement, and 3. That the request is substantial given that the setback required is 10 feet wide and this special approval results in an average 6 foot setback,but nonetheless, we are granting the approval necessary to maintain access to the yard, and 4. That the special approval will not have any adverse environmental or physical effects, specifically concerning sight lines,because there are distances of 100 feet and 85 feet to the corners, and given the low speed limits, the distances are great enough that people can see safely, and 3 5. That the alleged difficulty to the applicant is self-created in that the owner wants to build a fence at a height and in a location which requires ZBA Special Approval,but the detriment is outweighed by the benefits as detailed above. Special Approval Criteria, Pursuant to Town of Ithaca Code § 270-200,have been reviewed by the board on the record with the following findings: A. The health safety and morals of the community are in harmony with the purpose given that it is a fence for backyard recreation in a medium density residential zone, and B. The premises are reasonably adapted given that it is a residential zone, and C. The design is consistent with the character of the district and has been mitigated to some extent in the area variance conditions, and D. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the neighborhood character as given that it is a fence in a residential neighborhood and the conditions for the area variance have mitigated any minor effect, and E. There will be no operations in connection with the fence or noise, fumes disruption after the installation of the fence, and F. Community infrastructure does not apply, and G. The purpose of the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and H. The ingress and egress has been reviewed and is adequate for emergency vehicles, and I. No traffic impacts will happen as a result and sight line issues have been reviewed and addressed, and J. No impact to lot area, access,parking and loading, which shall all be sufficient for the proposed use and access and shall be adequately addressed by the gates proposed in said fencing; and K. No impact to surface water and drainage; drainage ways are not altered L. No site plan review is required. Vote- Ayes: Rosen, King, Decker, Jung and Vignaux. Unanimous. Appeal of William and Patricia Kerry, owners, requesting a variance from Chapter 270- 117 A(1) "Yard regulations", of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to build a 20 x 30 addition to the existing house without sufficient front Yard setback,located at 704 Elmira Rd, Tax Parcel No. 33.-2-6.21,Neighborhood Commercial(NC) Mr. Kerry and Mr. Somogy, Architect were available to answer questions. Mr. Rosen stated that the drawings show the existing house in nonconforming and the addition would increase the nonconformity but when he drove by the property it is a commercial district and is approximately the same as what is there now and won't have any kind of aesthetic impact. Mr. Vignaux agreed stating that he saw no issues with the addition and in fact went into Briar Patch and it will not affect their view or esthetics. Mr. King added that he thought it was a minimal change to the current house and it also has a fence in front of it. He added that the only thing wanted to ask about was putting the addition right in line with the front of the house for aesthetic reasons but that is the applicant's choice and preference. Ms. Decker stated that the addition fit quite well with the character and layout of the house. 4 Ms. Moynihan Schmitt noted that no SEQR is needed and Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. No one was present and the hearing was closed. ZBA Resolution 0055-2015 Area Variance 704 Elmira Rd, TP 33.-2-6.21 Neighborhood Commercial August 17, 2015 Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux Resolved that this board grants the appeal of William and Patricia Kerry, owners,requesting a variance from Chapter 270-117 A(1) "Yard regulations", of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to build a 20 x 30 addition to the existing house without sufficient front yard setback,located at 704 Elmira Rd, Tax Parcel No. 33.-2-6.21, Neighborhood Commercial (NC)with the following Conditions 1. That the building be built substantially as shown, and 2. That the setback be no less than 19 feet from the right of way, and With the following: Findings That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically that: 1. That there will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood character given that the building is in a commercial zone and the neighboring properties are commercial in nature and the house is already nonconforming and is secluded by fencing, and 2. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means possible given the floor plan of the house, and 3. The request is substantial given that 50 feet is required and 19 feet has been granted,but the existing building is already approximately 22 feet at setback, and 4. The request will not have physical or environmental effects since the increase to the existing structure will be minimal since the use as a residential house is less of a use that what is permitted by right in the area, and 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created but the effects are mitigated for the reasons stated above. Vote: Ayes—Rosen, King, Decker, Jung and Vignaux Granted. 5 Appeal of Ecovillage TREE, LLC, owner, Solar Liberty Energy Systems, agent, requesting a variance from Chanter 271-9H"Yard regulations", of the Code of the Town of Ithaca,to install roof mounted solar panels that extend bevond the exterior wall and exceed the 12 inches allowed, located at 313 Rachel Carson Trail,Tax Parcel No. 28.4-26.85, Planned Development Zone (P). Mr. Rosen asked Ms. Moynihan Schmitt and Mr. Bates about the next three appeals stating that they are all the same with slight variations and they responded that the findings can be the same and the general discussion can be the same but each appeal and resolution has to be separate to each address and each public hearing would have to be opened and closed separately. Discussion followed. Mr. Bates noted the distance requirements in the Planned Development Zone language for Ecovillage. He made the point that the state building code has to be adhered to so the state has to grant a variance also so any variance by this board would have to include a condition that the state variance be granted. The overhang and distance between is the key number here for fire separation.New York State Fire Prevention and Building Code/Residential Code states that exterior walls or projections shall not extend more than 12 inches into the fire separation distance and the overhang itself is 12 inches and the solar array has already been installed and extends 8 inches beyond that. The Board was not comfortable going through the process and possibly approving a potential violation of the state fire prevention and building code. The board was in favor of solar panels but there are alternatives such as using higher wattage panels so there are less of them or other options and health and human safety is a paramount consideration for the board. The applicant, with Solar Liberty Energy Systems acting as agent, stated that they have been working with the State on the variance and requested postponing their three appeals scheduled this evening to the next meeting or the soonest meeting after receiving the state variance. The board accepted. Accordingly: Appeal of Ecovillage TREE, LLC, owner, Solar Liberty Energy Systems, agent, requesting a variance from Chapter 271-9H "Yard regulations", of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to install roof mounted solar panels that extend beyond the exterior wall and exceed the 12 inches allowed, located at 313 Rachel Carson Trail,Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-26.85, Planned Development Zone (P) is postponed. Appeal of Ecovillage TREE, LLC, owner, Solar Liberty Energy Systems, agent,requesting a variance from Chapter 271-91-1"Yard regulations", of the Code of the Town of Ithaca,to install roof mounted solar panels that extend beyond the exterior wall and exceed the 12 inches allowed, located at 315 Rachel Carson Trail, Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-26.85, Planned Development Zone (P) is postponed. 6 Appeal of Ecovillage TREE, LLC, owner, Solar Liberty Energy Systems, agent,requesting a variance from Chapter 271-91-1"Yard regulations", of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to install roof mounted solar panels that extend beyond the exterior wall and exceed the 12 inches allowed, located at 317 Rachel Carson Trail, Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-26.85, Planned Development Zone (P) is postponed. Approval of Minutes Approval of the July minutes was moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Christine Decker– Unanimous. Meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Smi y �— Paulette Terwilliger Town Clerk 7